In a message dated 99-02-08 16:04:26 EST, you write:
> In the Nixon case, Gerald Ford was his replacement and he was not
> elected even as vice-president. I don't remember this being an issue. My
> understanding is that if Gore becomes president a new vice-president
> would be appointed. In Ford's case, Nelson Rockefeller was appointed to
> replace him. So, we had a vice president and a president who both had
> been appointed and not elected to their offices. And one was a Rockefeller!
>
> Howard Davis
The issue of overturning an election is a serious one. The Nixon
impeachment had bipartisan support and the support of the public. I've never
heard it suggested it was a coup.
The question here is whether or not impeaching Clinton could be considered
a coup de etat. The argument made being that Gore would become President and
it wouldn't be a coup. I disagree. Overthrowing an elected President by
subversive means, whether or not a political ally would then become President
is still a coup, in my opinion.
Isn't it true that the Senate had to approve Rockefeller's appointment as
VP? If so, as we've seen with judgeships and cabinet posts, approval of
Clinton appointees has repeatedly been delayed. If the approval process were
delayed long enough for "something to happen" to Gore, the Speaker would
become President.
After seeing that there is no point BELOW which the President's enemies
will not go to regain the WH, I wouldn't put anything past them. They can't
seem to "earn it the old-fashioned way" and, having no honor whatsoever, will
beg, borrow, slander and steal to have it back.
Samantha
